476 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

Its not that I don't like Cerberus, its just that there is too much Cerberus. Mass Effect is a space opera with numerous technolgical alian specis with an alian menace destroying galitic civilization. So why are about half the ME3 missions agaisnt a human organisation that has basically the same objective as Shephard?

 

For a space opera, Mass Effect is suprisingly small scale, with only a dozens or so species, and the same technology and architecture appearing all over the galaxy, not to mentions being able to travel from one end to galaxy to another in a matter of seconds. In Mass Effect 1 the Terminus System's were a a big unkown, with practically no contact between the council and terminus allingend systems. Then in Mass Effect 2, when the Terminus system were visitiable, it was remarkably similiar to the council system, with the same races, weapons armor, and corporations, a lost oppertunity, I'd say. Furthermore, unlike Star trek, there aren't any things like unexplainable space phenoma, unusual nebulas and other weird stuff. The Mass Effect universe is a very confined and small one.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I disagree with the OP. I believe. The treatment of Cerberus during the trilogy and its additional material was so inconsistent and confused. That's unfortunate because I believe Cerberus where a necessary component that fitted within the scope of the MEU and in humanity's relationship with the other species.

 

What confused me most is how they were labelled terrorists. Especially after the mini-game that featured Jacob and Miranda and was centred around them foiling an attempted WMD attack on the Citadel by Batarian terrorists under the umbrella of diplomatic immunity. That is my understanding of the plot line, never played it.

 

I played it, and Cerberus does back Jacob (Miranda acts as his handler, and he's recruited by a former commanding officer who has joined Cerberus). They made Cerberus out to be whatever the plot needed them to be, and unfortunately, their approach in-universe was just as inconsistent. Come ME3, there was very heavy-handed and hamfisted treatment towards them.

[It's Vexion]

I thought that their actions were very consistent. Throughout the entire series, 1-3, their ultimate goal was assuming control over the Reapers (was it... Direct?). In Mass Effect 1, they were experimenting with the mind control capabilities that the Thorian had -- trying to employ the same powers that the Reapers used. In Mass Effect 2, they used Shepard and friends as a tool to obtain the Reaper technology the Collectors possessed. In Mass Effect 3, they saw the perfect opportunity to attempt to gain control of the Reapers: the Reapers were here and all of the possible Alliance resistance was far too busy struggling with the threat of extinction. 

 

Understand that the Illusive Man was just as illuminated to the threat of the Reapers as Shepard, if not more so -- only he had an entirely different way and method of dealing with them. In a sense the Illusive Man and the Cerberus faction is Shepard and his crew fallen to greed and to the indoctrination of the Reapers.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I thought that their actions were very consistent. Throughout the entire series, 1-3, their ultimate goal was assuming control over the Reapers (was it... Direct?). In Mass Effect 1, they were experimenting with the mind control capabilities that the Thorian had -- trying to employ the same powers that the Reapers used. In Mass Effect 2, they used Shepard and friends as a tool to obtain the Reaper technology the Collectors possessed. In Mass Effect 3, they saw the perfect opportunity to attempt to gain control of the Reapers: the Reapers were here and all of the possible Alliance resistance was far too busy struggling with the threat of extinction. 

 

Understand that the Illusive Man was just as illuminated to the threat of the Reapers as Shepard, if not more so -- only he had an entirely different way and method of dealing with them. In a sense the Illusive Man and the Cerberus faction is Shepard and his crew fallen to greed and to the indoctrination of the Reapers.

 

Drew K. himself would disagree with you and point out the falsity of this assessment. In ME1, Cerberus was nothing more than an undefined side-mission antagonist. Drew said that at the time of ME1, Cerberus was just a group of mooks to kill. 

 

It wasn't until ME2 came around that they were reworked (I hesitate to say retcon, since it isn't truly a retcon so much as it is definition) into being the rogue/vigilante paramilitary organization dedicated to human preservation and advancement, and unwilling to stand by and watch as humanity was being targeted by the Collectors and prepare for the arrival of the Reapers.

 

It really wasn't until Drew left and Mac took over that Cerberus started to get flanderized into what they became in ME3. 

[It's Vexion]

Drew K. himself would disagree with you and point out the falsity of this assessment. In ME1, Cerberus was nothing more than an undefined side-mission antagonist. Drew said that at the time of ME1, Cerberus was just a group of mooks to kill. 

 

It wasn't until ME2 came around that they were reworked (I hesitate to say retcon, since it isn't truly a retcon so much as it is definition) into being the rogue/vigilante paramilitary organization dedicated to human preservation and advancement, and unwilling to stand by and watch as humanity was being targeted by the Collectors and prepare for the arrival of the Reapers.

 

It really wasn't until Drew left and Mac took over that Cerberus started to get flanderized into what they became in ME3. 

 

What he intended and what Cerberus turned out to be are two different things. Their actions throughout the trilogy remained consistent in their ultimate goal revealed in the third game. It's entirely in his right to disagree with me as to what he intended -- as it is none of my business to dictate what Drew thinks. However, I know what I see and I can quite easily piece together the events of all three games. Their actions make sense when analyzing their goals established by the end of Mass Effect 2.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Drew K. himself would disagree with you and point out the falsity of this assessment. In ME1, Cerberus was nothing more than an undefined side-mission antagonist. Drew said that at the time of ME1, Cerberus was just a group of mooks to kill. 

 

It wasn't until ME2 came around that they were reworked (I hesitate to say retcon, since it isn't truly a retcon so much as it is definition) into being the rogue/vigilante paramilitary organization dedicated to human preservation and advancement, and unwilling to stand by and watch as humanity was being targeted by the Collectors and prepare for the arrival of the Reapers.

 

It really wasn't until Drew left and Mac took over that Cerberus started to get flanderized into what they became in ME3. 

 

I think the only technical recon was their origin as an Alliance black-ops group which is present in the ME1 Codex but not the ME2 version.

 

What he intended and what Cerberus turned out to be are two different things. Their actions throughout the trilogy remained consistent in their ultimate goal revealed in the third game. It's entirely in his right to disagree with me as to what he intended -- as it is none of my business to dictate what Drew thinks. However, I know what I see and I can quite easily piece together the events of all three games. Their actions make sense when analyzing their goals established by the end of Mass Effect 2.

 

I think you're going to have to explain this one, because the only cohesion I see is that the group serves at the behest of the writers to do plot stuff. Given the pile of asspulls and contrivances the group is build upon it doesn't really make much sense for them to somehow have a coherent goal that was established for longer than a fraction of a single game.

[KaiserShep]

I think the only technical recon was their origin as an Alliance black-ops group which is present in the ME1 Codex but not the ME2 version.

 

If I recall, their origins as an Alliance black-ops group is acknowledged in ME3, though only in passing conversation between the two soldiers standing guard between the CIC and the Normandy's conference room.

[Original182]

Mass Effect 3 - They feature in a major, villainous role. Somehow, they have an unfeasibly powerful private military force that can stand toe to toe with the military forces of the galactic nations. They have moved up from Jesus technology to being able to hijack Reapers, the most mentally and physically powerful beings in the franchise. As a matter of fact, their role in the game greatly exceeds that of the Reapers.

 

They have a conspicuous space station and a private fleet of military ships that can stand up to the Alliance's fleets. They also had the manpower to conquer and take over Omega station in the Terminus Systems, which was home to countless powerful mercenary and criminal groups - so many, in fact, that their sheer number served as a deterrant to the Citadel Council. In spite of this, Cerberus is able to take Omega with little effort. Their military forces are ubiquitous. There are no signs that they are being spread thin anywhere. Somehow, they are able to train and support all of these soldiers with supplies and equipment. How their armor and weapons are produced is not explained. How they are trained is not explained (indoctrination is not training).

 

It was explained briefly that they used the refugees from Sanctuary and put "something" in them to make them combat-ready, so some of the Cerberus people you killed were refugees.

[It's Vexion]

I think you're going to have to explain this one, because the only cohesion I see is that the group serves at the behest of the writers to do plot stuff. Given the pile of asspulls and contrivances the group is build upon it doesn't really make much sense for them to somehow have a coherent goal that was established for longer than a fraction of a single game.

 

I already explained it very concisely and briefly in my first post of this thread, but I will elaborate a bit more.

 

Pre Mass Effect 1) Jack Harper (aka Illusive Man), a long-time human-centrist, is exposed to a Prothean artifact towards the end of the First Contact War, much like Shepard is in the beginning of Mass Effect 1. It's then that he concludes that more must be discovered about the artifact and the implications involved with the Prothean's destruction. He finds the Reapers are responsible. He then gains control of Cerberus and splinters away from the Alliance.

 

Mass Effect 1) They are established as a rogue Alliance black-ops and are connected to numerous acts of "terror" as referred to by the Alliance and public media. They are also responsible for research into the Thorian -- one of the few sentient beings to survive the cycles and that possesses the same indoctrination abilities as the Reapers and, as revealed later, the Leviathans.

 

Mass Effect 2) He uses Shepard as a tool to access the Reaper technology at the Collector's station at the heart of the galaxy -- and regardless of Shepard's actions, that was the intent Jack had. To harness the technology to make humanity the dominant race in the galaxy.

 

Mass Effect 3) This is where his motivations are more dubious, primarily because of the slow indoctrination. Cerberus is becoming the faction that every cycle had before it -- much like Javik alludes to in the extensive conversations the player can have. Cerberus had the intention to try and control the Reapers for the benefit of their own race and, instead, were the ones controlled.

 

That's not to say that they weren't used as a literary plot device. You are absolutely right about the re-purposing of their functionality as the series evolved -- but I believe it was done in a justifiable, coherent way. Not only that, but they are certainly not the worst element of Mass Effect's plot. They are, in my opinion, one of the most morally ambiguous and interesting factions in the game -- even if every experiment they conduct, laughably, goes wrong. That's just my opinion -- you are free to disagree.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If I recall, their origins as an Alliance black-ops group is acknowledged in ME3, though only in passing conversation between the two soldiers standing guard between the CIC and the Normandy's conference room.

 

Which made it even more confusing for me. The Codex still doesn't mention anything about it and by that time the comic had already come out detailing the exploits of Jack Harper and there wasn't any black-ops there. I get around it by imaging one of the newer writers who played the first game and remembered the black-ops thing decided to put it in without realizing how much it would inconvenience me.

[KaiserShep]

Heh, maybe by the time ME2 and 3 rolled around, Shepard and Cerberus' own crazy experiments just about killed all of the original people, and the only thing that stuck was the name.

[Sleeper_Tyrant]

A lot of hate for Cerberus, huh? I actually like the idea of cerberus (me2 one), but hate them in me3.

If you guys were in charge of remaking the trilogy, but have to have Cerberus in it, what would you change to make them less sucky?

[Wulfram]

I'd keep them more firmly tied down as rogue alliance black ops that does dodgy experiments, rather than being an all-embracing conspiracy that knows everything, owns everything and does everything.

 

If they're needed as the villains in ME3, they can get their army and fleet by indoctrinating Alliance forces, rather than conjuring it out of nowhere.

[ImaginaryMatter]

A lot of hate for Cerberus, huh? I actually like the idea of cerberus (me2 one), but hate them in me3.

If you guys were in charge of remaking the trilogy, but have to have Cerberus in it, what would you change to make them less sucky?

 

I would keep them in their ME1 state and they would rarely show up in any subsequent title. In ME2 they would still be responsible for Jack's history -- back when they were still reporting to the Alliance -- as that seems to fit pretty well with the Cerberus MO, only with more money. They would also probably be involved with the Overlord DLC missions along with one of the bigger colonial companies. Most of their involvement though would be done through news reports. If the Cerberus arc in ME1 was done most of the news would be the continuing story of dismantling the group and revealing its actions to the public. If the Cerberus arc in ME1 was ignored it would be news reports of finding all the failed experiments and reports of small abductions or missing colonists in the Attican Traverse.

 

TIM and Miranda would still be in the game only they would be moved to being involved with the Shadow Broker, where they would serve in a similar role to their ME2 counterparts -- although their relationship with Shepard would be more akin to the Shadow Broker's and Vasir's relationship in LotSB. My idea for ME2 would be very different, as Shepard would still be working for the Alliance/Council who are actually helpful this time around, and there wouldn't be any Lazarus Project business.

[Display Name Owner]

A lot of hate for Cerberus, huh? I actually like the idea of cerberus (me2 one), but hate them in me3.

If you guys were in charge of remaking the trilogy, but have to have Cerberus in it, what would you change to make them less sucky?

 

I'd just tone them down and not make them such a big deal.

 

I like the idea of how they are in ME2, but even then I'd say they're too much of a superpower. I'd keep them somewhat well funded and well equipped since it's not like they have to worry about defence and civilians and the like like the Alliance do, but not to the extent they were in ME2. And TIM wouldn't be well informed to the point of being clairvoyant, nor would their scientist be somehow capable of any magic trick the plot demands for some reason.

 

More importantly, plot-wise they wouldn't be all over the place. Thinking about it, the whole theme of humanity's place in the galaxy could be quite nice in conjunction with the Reaper plot, but they took up way too much time and space, which goes back to the plausibility issue. 

I dunno, honestly the whole of ME2's plot could use some serious tuning up so Cerberus' entire story arc would probably be entirely different in a lot of ways.

[Sleeper_Tyrant]

Seems like you guys would have done the same thing as I would.

In ME2 I would actually leash Cerberus (sorry for the pun) to the Alliance. As Miranda says in the beginning: "we're the response to the other species black ops (stg and asari commandos). I would as well put more Cerberus characters that you get to meet, like a different field team. Maybe even Kai Leng, but less lame. This would make fighting them in ME3 (as adversaries, not mustache twirling villains) more impactful.

In ME3 they would be adversaries, as I said. Maulybe they want more Reaper technology and would step on your toes to get it, I dunno, but they wouldn't be indoctrinated. And they would have a small team, comprised of the people you get to know in 2. They would be mini-bosses that you have to decide if you kill them or imprison.

Who knows? could be fun.

[It's Vexion]

The ramification for their being so big is that they take advantage of desperate colonists that are, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the Alliance and Citadel forces. They indoctrinate them, willing or not, into their forces. That's the lore's justification.

 

I do, however, agree that their presence could have been handled much better. As opposed to larger numbers, they should have been stronger in fewer numbers. But Cerberus' goals were fairly consistent, and that's where I think the original argument was being made. 

[Arcian]

If you guys were in charge of remaking the trilogy, but have to have Cerberus in it, what would you change to make them less sucky?

Well, for starters, I wouldn't have them overshadow the goddamn Reapers.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The goals are really only consistent through retroactive continuity introduced by SuperMac. It's easy to say that in ME1, they had a clear goal, basing it off of information that was later released about Cerberus. But when it came out, and when ME2 was on the drawing board? You bet Cerberus was being changed from their initial conception to the next incarnation. They were fortunate that Cerberus had such a lack of definition in ME1 to be able to justify the narrative addition in their organization for ME2.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

A lot of hate for Cerberus, huh? I actually like the idea of cerberus (me2 one), but hate them in me3.

If you guys were in charge of remaking the trilogy, but have to have Cerberus in it, what would you change to make them less sucky?

 

Eh, I've pretty much driven off all the Cerberus haters here for the most part, or they know better than to say something because they know that I will inevitably jump on them.

 

Depends on how you 'hate them' in ME3. I might even jump here.

[It's Vexion]

The goals are really only consistent through retroactive continuity introduced by SuperMac. It's easy to say that in ME1, they had a clear goal, basing it off of information that was later released about Cerberus. But when it came out, and when ME2 was on the drawing board? You bet Cerberus was being changed from their initial conception to the next incarnation. They were fortunate that Cerberus had such a lack of definition in ME1 to be able to justify the narrative addition in their organization for ME2.

 

Absolutely, and I haven't disagreed. They were a blank sleight and something for the writers to work with. No, they were not intended to be what they are in Mass Effect 3 -- but it worked and it was coherent. Overall, their narrative was consistent and executed well, with the only major issue being their numbers in Mass Effect 3.

[Fixers0]

They were fortunate that Cerberus had such a lack of definition in ME1 to be able to justify the narrative addition in their organization for ME2.

 

This is true, yet the fact that they still managed to screw it up shows you how lowly the writers hold constintency.

[Sleeper_Tyrant]

I had more ideas for a less inconsistent Cerberus, but perhaps I should create a new topic?

Edit: It was too long to post here so I made a new topic, if you could look it over, I would appreciate it. Here's the link
http://forum.bioware...rus-reimagined/

[Dale]

Arcian,

 

Your analysis of Cerberus and points given are well taken.  Thank you.   I believe however, any challenge to the player requires a REALLY BAD villain.   Reapers are powerful but in my view -- boring in that they are “machines that can be broken”.    I’m surprised nukes weren’t used or some sort of fusion-warhead missile.  This would become boring (to me) if it were just [metallic] reapers needing conquering with superior firepower.

 

Alternatively, we CAN and DO relate to bad guys – especially the darker side of humans.    For the Turians, Salerians, Krogans and the Geth reading this thread  -- we humans have a dark history of those skilled in deceit, treachery, greed, avarice, & genocide -- to the tune of Niccolò Machiavelli

 

One fact I’ve learned in business is you give the customer what he/she WANTS.   That’s not clearly defined and certainly differs [obviously] from person to person in a game – however there is a certain “list” of things COMMON to all humans.   Expounding on that “list” is beyond the scope of your thread – and I’m a stickler for keeping ON TRACK since about 80% of posters only quote-and-gripe, quote-and-slander, or talk about other games & movies that are totally irrelevant to the thread purpose (my thread is like that now).

 

In ME1, Cerberus was (to me) an enigma; strange, weird, questionable, but had a scientific purpose.   ME2 played up BIG on three things on that “list”: 

 

(1) Injustice of the jackass council and

(2) The warm and fuzzy feeling you got being “cared for” as TIM’s “most important resource” at the time (“disposable tool” later).   Almost respectable in ME2 since the Council are “weeds of the galaxy”.

(3) Romance 

 

Anybody’s WILD fantasy!   Your own (most advanced) new starship, honor, respect, money, women, powerful weapons, interesting assignments, romances (you couldn’t achieve in real life), and galaxy-changing accomplishments (as compared to mowing the lawn in real life).  No wonder why folks still play after 2 years & counting.

 

THAT COMPLICATED?:  I've played adventure games containing some puzzles (like Tomb Raider & Splinter Cell).  Alternatively, there are PURELY puzzles games (like the Myst series) that appeal to mostly adults because kids don't have the patience & kids like to shoot everything that moves.  In perspective, the ME series is mostly just FUN to play with light on the puzzles & some compelling drama in places.  In contrast, the "Indoctrination Theory" supposes [very] complex & parallel undertones that would exist in [very] complex puzzle games like Myst-4.   I can’t see such a radical switch as has been suggested in other threads.

 

OVER ANALYSIS:  There’s lots of GOOFY things in the game that I let ride (except the ending).   Think about it:  gravity & human medkits on a Geth dreadnaught.  Reapers not “adjusting” the Mass Relays during harvest time (using only IFF) which would stop any enemy (us) in their tracks.   Hearing laser fire & explosions in a vacuum.   Lots of forum talk about “he is in open space”.  Ever notice when the Normandy pulls into doc, you see the WHITE atmosphere-retaining barrier it goes thru?   Too much nit-picking (“gee, look what I thought of!”).

 

Yes, in ME3 Cerberus is the “fly in the ointment” – resisting you at every turn & needs “to be kicked in the balls”.   After 6 hours into ME3, I was so infuriated with TIM, that I went back into ME2, blew up the collector base and restarted ME3 again.   Yes I’m emotional – I’m not a potted plant (and on that point, I don’t hide behind my screen and throw rocks at folks – as done by some skateboarders on this forum). 

 

Cerberus “has noble goals” – the problem is that TIM is the evil crony that should be dethroned and replaced by someone more “noble”.   The Council is always at the top of my SH*T list.   TIM is #2.   But consider how void the game would be without these obstacles to overcome.

 

Initially I was going to trash ME3 after the first play then I decided to enjoy 99% of the great gameplay and ignore the 1% moron ending.   Now on my 5^th play.  Players have GOT to allow some stupid stuff to make the game FLOW and not so OVER analyze & nitpick the thing to death (as in Myst-4).      If not Cerberus, then some other [similar] bad villain-thing-organization that you’d be referring to.